Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Whitehouse

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

=[[Rich Whitehouse]]=

:{{la|Rich Whitehouse}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rich_Whitehouse Stats])

:({{Find sources|Rich Whitehouse}})

I'm not generally one in support of the "deletion upon request" bit, but will note that someone claiming to be the article subject has brought up concerns about it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_Whitehouse&diff=488936300&oldid=488421542]. However, the issue here is quite fundamental—the "sources" in this article by and large aren't. Blog posts, web forums, etc., make up all the "sourcing" to be found on this article, and I can't find anything better when searching. I do not therefore believe that this article has sufficient sourcing to sustain it and fails notability as a result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete, I'd also spotted the speedy request the nominator linked above, and was researching this at the same time. I was not convinced that what sourcing I was able to find rose to WP:GNG. Additional sourcing showing greater-than-marginal notability would be required to change my mind. Checked Highbeam as well as the usual Google searching suspects. --joe deckertalk to me 06:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ({{find video game sources short|Rich Whitehouse|linksearch=}}) • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.